In a statement published in his magazine's May 30 issue, Newsweek editor-in-chief Richard Smith has promised readers more tightly controlled use of anonymous sources.

An excerpt from an AP story carried on CTV.ca:

Two of the magazine's top editors will be assigned sole responsibility for approving the use of such sources, and the magazine will stop using the phrase "sources said" to attribute information in stories, Smith said.

"We got an important story wrong, and honor requires us to admit our mistake and redouble our efforts to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again," he wrote.

The disputed May 9 article said U.S. investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of the Qur'an in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk. The magazine's report was blamed for violent protests in Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people died and scores were injured.

I wrote last week (along with a gillion other armchair media critics) that Newsweek should consider adopting a two-source rule, meaning you can't report something based on an anonymous source unless you've heard it from two different (and independent) sources.

In the latest issue, the magazine stopped short of requiring that its reporters corroborate sources speaking on condition of anonymity with a second source, but Smith said that editors would work harder to do so.

"When information provided by a source wishing to remain anonymous is essential to a sensitive story — alleging misconduct or reflecting a highly contentious point of view, for example — we pledge a renewed effort to seek a second independent source or other corroborating evidence," Smith said.

I agree with what Smith said here:

One of the frustrating aspects of our initial inquiry is that we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story. On the basis of what we know now, I've seen nothing to suggest that our people acted unethically or unprofessionally. Veteran reporter Michael Isikoff relied on a well-placed and historically reliable government source. We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Qur'an. Had he objected to the allegations, I am confident that we would have at the very least revised the item, but we mistakenly took the official's silence for confirmation.

It now seems clear that we didn't know enough or do enough before publication, and if our traditional procedures did not prevent the mistake, then it is time to clarify and strengthen a number of our policies.